Slavoj Žižek on his Conservatism, Christian Atheism, Frankenstein & Hegel
Interview · The Žižek Times ·
2025-03-20 · 0:20:06 · 2,678 words
communism-socialismideologycapitalismcinema-art-culturegeopolitics-warphilosophy-general
Žižek defends a 'modest Marxism' against 20th-century failures, arguing that contemporary capitalism faces a deadlock requiring fundamental systemic change rather than utopian fixes. He analyzes modern ideology through the lens of cynicism, using Kung Fu Panda and Hitchcock’s Psycho to illustrate how ideology functions even when mocked. He critiques the current political landscape as a nascent 'new apartheid,' discusses Julian Assange’s strategic use of WikiLeaks, and concludes by asserting the absolute priority of philosophical thinking over humanitarian action.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 8
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
as “intelligent conservatives”
A category of thinkers who, unlike reactionaries or liberal progressives, correctly identify the current deadlock of capitalism and admit they do not know the way out.
Žižek's personal political stance: a return to Marxist critique of capitalism's fundamental structures, stripped of 20th-century state-socialist failures and utopian expectations.
as “cynical ideology”
The modern mode of ideology where subjects know the truth (e.g., the emptiness of the ideology) but act as if they believe it; Žižek argues it functions better when it makes fun of itself.
as “gnostic theology of a stupid evil god”
Žižek's interpretation of the visual structure in Hitchcock's Psycho, where the camera's movement implies a detached, malevolent cosmic order rather than human agency.
Žižek's reading of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein: the monster is not inherently evil but is a 'tragedy of goodness' who wants to be good, is repeatedly disappointed, and explodes in violence.
Žižek's prediction for the future of global capitalism: a permissive society regarding sexuality and consumption, but strictly controlled, with new 'walls' separating an included, happy elite from an excluded, exploding underclass.
The unspoken agreement between the powerful and the ordinary people; WikiLeaks is justified only when power violates this pact by hiding things that should be known.
The ethical imperative to prioritize the freedom to think and analyze, even in the face of extreme suffering, as a counter to the ruling ideology's blackmail ('do something so don't think').
Stories he reaches for 1
Žižek uses the animated film Kung Fu Panda as a prime example of modern ideology: it combines Orientalist mystique with utter cynicism, making fun of its own ideology while ideology still functions effectively.
“A story of a fat panda who becomes a kind of a oriental authentic warrior... at the same time, utter cynicism. All the time making fun of its own ideology, but nonetheless, ideology functions.”
Works invoked 5
Psycho film
Cited for its 'implicit, very pessimist gnostic theology' revealed through camera movement, specifically the murder of Arbogast.
Referenced as a previous work, implicitly less successful than the new ideology guide.
Kung Fu Panda film
Used as a 'perfect example' of how modern ideology functions through cynicism and self-mockery.
Mentioned as a project Žižek was finishing filming, described as 'much better than Pervert's Guide to Cinema.'
Frankenstein book
Preferred over the film; viewed as a 'self-criticism of Enlightenment' and a 'tragedy of goodness.'
People invoked 6
Frankenstein (Monster) positive
Žižek states he is 'totally on Frankenstein's side' and wants him to win, viewing the monster as a victim of a 'tragedy of goodness.'
Mary Shelley positive
Žižek prefers the novel Frankenstein to the film, viewing it as a 'self-criticism of Enlightenment' and a 'tragedy of goodness.'
Julian Assange positive
Žižek considers Assange his friend and argues that Assange's actions with WikiLeaks are 'more intelligent than it appears,' strategically targeting the violation of the implicit pact by power.
Marx Brothers positive
Cited as part of a list of films that reveal the 'implicit paradoxes of our everyday ideological universe.'
Alfred Hitchcock positive
Žižek considers his best films 'ultimate classics' and uses them to analyze ideological predicaments, specifically noting his 'star-like quality' shouldn't deceive us about his artistic depth.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel positive
Described as 'my ultimate philosopher'; Žižek is writing a massive 1,000+ page book on him.
Transcript 38 turns
unknown
My next guest has
My next guest has
unknown
been described as more of a phenomenon than a philosopher. He also labors under the rubric of being the Elvis of philosophy. He packs out auditoriums and lecture halls whenever he speaks and he's one of Europe's foremost Marxist theorists. He also has a deadly sense of humor. Oh, he has an opinion on everything from decaffeinated coffee to sex, from seagulls to swearing, to the end of the world. Fellow atheist Slavoj Žižek is International Director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities at the University of London and he's professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia. He's the author of well, look, more than forty books, hundreds of articles, and he joins me on the blower from Slovenia. Welcome to our little wireless program. Thanks, very glad to be there. Now you're in Australia on the weekend to speak at Sydney's Festival of Dangerous Ideas. What dangerous ideas will you be presenting to us?
been described as more of a phenomenon than a philosopher. He also labors under the rubric of being the Elvis of philosophy. He packs out auditoriums and lecture halls whenever he speaks and he's one of Europe's foremost Marxist theorists. He also has a deadly sense of humor. Oh, he has an opinion on everything from decaffeinated coffee to sex, from seagulls to swearing, to the end of the world. Fellow atheist Slavoj Žižek is International Director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities at the University of London and he's professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia. He's the author of well, look, more than forty books, hundreds of articles, and he joins me on the blower from Slovenia. Welcome to our little wireless program. Thanks, very glad to be there. Now you're in Australia on the weekend to speak at Sydney's Festival of Dangerous Ideas. What dangerous ideas will you be presenting to us?
Slavoj Žižek
Well, it's the good old communism. Of course, not the way it was realized in the 20th century. I'm the first to admit that this was one of the candidates for the greatest fiasco in history. But I think that the problems are still here, the problems to which the 20th-century communism was a terribly wrong reply. And we have to confront the problems.
Well, it's the good old communism. Of course, not the way it was realized in the 20th century. I'm the first to admit that this was one of the candidates for the greatest fiasco in history. But I think that the problems are still here, the problems to which the 20th-century communism was a terribly wrong reply. And we have to confront the problems.
unknown
Your attitude is that, as I understand it, you don't think communism is likely to make a big comeback in the short term, but you like to think about it, don't you? You like to imagine a new communism.
Your attitude is that, as I understand it, you don't think communism is likely to make a big comeback in the short term, but you like to think about it, don't you? You like to imagine a new communism.
Slavoj Žižek
Yeah, but not as a utopia. I even don't know how it will look. In a way, I'm very close to intelligent conservatives. I like them. You know, reactionaries have a solution: Let's return to good old times. Liberal progressives have a solution: Let's go on with individual freedoms. Intelligent conservatives just see a deadlock and admit, well, I don't know the way out. And that's basically all I'm saying. At the level of ecology, at the level of the functioning of capitalism, with all the problems of finance capital, intellectual property, biogenetics, new forms of apartheid, we are approaching problems. And I just want people who read me or listen to me to be—to become aware that there is no easy way out. That we should just think that we will have to do something which will affect the fundamentals of our system. It's as simple as that. Not utopia. One of the things about you is you cannot help being a provocateur. We're fellow atheists, as I said, but you see no contradiction in arguing for the world in which Christians and Marxists unite against, and I quote, "the contemporary onslaught of vapid spirituality." Yeah, but like, these Christians are strange Christians and Marxists that I like are strange Marxists. Marxists for me have
Yeah, but not as a utopia. I even don't know how it will look. In a way, I'm very close to intelligent conservatives. I like them. You know, reactionaries have a solution: Let's return to good old times. Liberal progressives have a solution: Let's go on with individual freedoms. Intelligent conservatives just see a deadlock and admit, well, I don't know the way out. And that's basically all I'm saying. At the level of ecology, at the level of the functioning of capitalism, with all the problems of finance capital, intellectual property, biogenetics, new forms of apartheid, we are approaching problems. And I just want people who read me or listen to me to be—to become aware that there is no easy way out. That we should just think that we will have to do something which will affect the fundamentals of our system. It's as simple as that. Not utopia. One of the things about you is you cannot help being a provocateur. We're fellow atheists, as I said, but you see no contradiction in arguing for the world in which Christians and Marxists unite against, and I quote, "the contemporary onslaught of vapid spirituality." Yeah, but like, these Christians are strange Christians and Marxists that I like are strange Marxists. Marxists for me have
unknown
nothing in common with that 20th-century trust, you know, "history is on our side, we are the instrument of a necessary historical progress," on account of what you are then allowed to kill millions. And Christianity is for me the most radical atheism. Christianity means God dies on the cross. All that remains is the Holy Spirit. What is Holy Spirit? It's clear from the Bible. It's simply a community of emancipatory individuals. It's an egalitarian community. There is no God who helps us. God dies. All it all, God gives us freedom. I'm a total atheist here. My Christianity is even a more radical
nothing in common with that 20th-century trust, you know, "history is on our side, we are the instrument of a necessary historical progress," on account of what you are then allowed to kill millions. And Christianity is for me the most radical atheism. Christianity means God dies on the cross. All that remains is the Holy Spirit. What is Holy Spirit? It's clear from the Bible. It's simply a community of emancipatory individuals. It's an egalitarian community. There is no God who helps us. God dies. All it all, God gives us freedom. I'm a total atheist here. My Christianity is even a more radical
Slavoj Žižek
Christianity—sorry, a more radical atheism—than the usual atheism, which still usually tries to guarantee progress with some natural propensities, laws of history. I say no, we are totally on our own.
Christianity—sorry, a more radical atheism—than the usual atheism, which still usually tries to guarantee progress with some natural propensities, laws of history. I say no, we are totally on our own.
unknown
You were born into a family of atheists, weren't you? Yeah. So a lifelong commitment to atheism. What about Marxism? When did that kick in for you?
You were born into a family of atheists, weren't you? Yeah. So a lifelong commitment to atheism. What about Marxism? When did that kick in for you?
Slavoj Žižek
It may appear very strange to you, but when I was young in communist Yugoslavia, I was not able to get a university job because I was critical of Marxism. And my return to some kind of modest Marxism is late. And I like this irony that some of the very same professors who, in the late '70s, early '80s of the last century, were criticizing me for not being a Marxist are now, they've changed sides, criticizing me for being a Marxist. I like this kind of historical irony. Eh, it happens, it
It may appear very strange to you, but when I was young in communist Yugoslavia, I was not able to get a university job because I was critical of Marxism. And my return to some kind of modest Marxism is late. And I like this irony that some of the very same professors who, in the late '70s, early '80s of the last century, were criticizing me for not being a Marxist are now, they've changed sides, criticizing me for being a Marxist. I like this kind of historical irony. Eh, it happens, it
unknown
happens. Yeah. I mentioned that you've got a very powerful sense of humor, which is one of your most attractive characteristic traits. Let's talk briefly about the documentary from which you scripted and presented called The Pervert's Guide to Cinema. You're very fond of cinema, you use it as a tool of communication and of for analysis.
happens. Yeah. I mentioned that you've got a very powerful sense of humor, which is one of your most attractive characteristic traits. Let's talk briefly about the documentary from which you scripted and presented called The Pervert's Guide to Cinema. You're very fond of cinema, you use it as a tool of communication and of for analysis.
Slavoj Žižek
Yes. Oh, I mean, also often I'm interested in cinema for immanent reasons. For me, cinema can be a tremendous art. But mostly I use it as an instrument to analyze where we are ideologically, what is our predicament. I still think that to understand what is going on in our societies, the best way to do it is look at a Hollywood film. Like, give you just one brief example: how does our cynicism today function? My God, look at that animated megahit Kung Fu Panda. A story of a fat panda who becomes a kind of a oriental authentic warrior. You have there all this mystique of orientalism—fate, destiny, sacrifice, warrior—but at the same time, utter cynicism. All the time making fun of its own ideology, but nonetheless, ideology functions. This is the perfect example for me of how again ideology functions today. It functions even more if you make fun of it. You should dress up in a panda costume because it would be very appropriate for you. Oh, to be very cynical towards myself, I think that even without trying to appear like a panda, I already look like one, so I don't have even to—I mean, you know, in reality already I'm kind of a panda. Yes, you are spectacularly bearded, I congratulate you on that. Incidentally, this may interest your listeners. You know that I—I'm just coming from Dublin where we finished filming the second part, which is A Pervert's Guide to Ideology. It will be much better than Pervert's Guide to Cinema. Well, let's stick with the Pervert's Guide to Cinema. I was taken by the fact that there are a great many Marx Brothers films on your list and a great many Hitchcock films. They—it seems an odd pairing, Marx Brothers and Hitchcock. Yeah, Marx Brothers
Yes. Oh, I mean, also often I'm interested in cinema for immanent reasons. For me, cinema can be a tremendous art. But mostly I use it as an instrument to analyze where we are ideologically, what is our predicament. I still think that to understand what is going on in our societies, the best way to do it is look at a Hollywood film. Like, give you just one brief example: how does our cynicism today function? My God, look at that animated megahit Kung Fu Panda. A story of a fat panda who becomes a kind of a oriental authentic warrior. You have there all this mystique of orientalism—fate, destiny, sacrifice, warrior—but at the same time, utter cynicism. All the time making fun of its own ideology, but nonetheless, ideology functions. This is the perfect example for me of how again ideology functions today. It functions even more if you make fun of it. You should dress up in a panda costume because it would be very appropriate for you. Oh, to be very cynical towards myself, I think that even without trying to appear like a panda, I already look like one, so I don't have even to—I mean, you know, in reality already I'm kind of a panda. Yes, you are spectacularly bearded, I congratulate you on that. Incidentally, this may interest your listeners. You know that I—I'm just coming from Dublin where we finished filming the second part, which is A Pervert's Guide to Ideology. It will be much better than Pervert's Guide to Cinema. Well, let's stick with the Pervert's Guide to Cinema. I was taken by the fact that there are a great many Marx Brothers films on your list and a great many Hitchcock films. They—it seems an odd pairing, Marx Brothers and Hitchcock. Yeah, Marx Brothers
unknown
is the obvious, not only this obvious association with Marxism, this is an old joke, of course, but what I like about Marx Brothers is how, with their absurd joke, they often bring out
is the obvious, not only this obvious association with Marxism, this is an old joke, of course, but what I like about Marx Brothers is how, with their absurd joke, they often bring out
Slavoj Žižek
the implicit paradoxes of our everyday ideological universe. With Hitchcock, it's different. I think that his star-like quality shouldn't deceive us. He really was an artist in the sense that his best films are for me maybe the ultimate classics. By artist, I mean that Hitchcock, his films don't just tell a good story, but you can discover a whole
the implicit paradoxes of our everyday ideological universe. With Hitchcock, it's different. I think that his star-like quality shouldn't deceive us. He really was an artist in the sense that his best films are for me maybe the ultimate classics. By artist, I mean that Hitchcock, his films don't just tell a good story, but you can discover a whole
unknown
world
world
Slavoj Žižek
view, a whole spiritual
view, a whole spiritual
unknown
content in the form
content in the form
Slavoj Žižek
itself. Like, look in how a certain scene is shot. Like, look at the, for example, the second murder from Hitchcock's Psycho, the murder of the detective Arbogast. The way camera moves up, shows the whole scene of the murder from the top, and then jumps to the point of view of the murderer. I claim there is a whole implicit, very pessimist gnostic theology of a stupid evil god implied there and so on. That's what I like. You don't need to spell out explicitly ideas. They must be contained in the way you tell the story.
itself. Like, look in how a certain scene is shot. Like, look at the, for example, the second murder from Hitchcock's Psycho, the murder of the detective Arbogast. The way camera moves up, shows the whole scene of the murder from the top, and then jumps to the point of view of the murderer. I claim there is a whole implicit, very pessimist gnostic theology of a stupid evil god implied there and so on. That's what I like. You don't need to spell out explicitly ideas. They must be contained in the way you tell the story.
unknown
You're also drawn to science fiction, but I'll leave that aside and look at an early example of the genre. You include the film Frankenstein, which I think is in its own modest way a masterpiece. What does Frankenstein say to you as a philosopher and a Marxist?
You're also drawn to science fiction, but I'll leave that aside and look at an early example of the genre. You include the film Frankenstein, which I think is in its own modest way a masterpiece. What does Frankenstein say to you as a philosopher and a Marxist?
Slavoj Žižek
No, first I must say I don't like the usual reading, which can be even a conservative one, that Frankenstein stands for the social upheaval, for the revolution or social discontent which explodes. I think that Frankenstein is—if you read the novel, it's much better than the film, Mary Shelley—it's a kind of a self-criticism of Enlightenment. It shows where the classical Enlightenment idea of a natural being, human as a natural being, goes wrong. I mean, Frankenstein is a tragedy of goodness for me. Remember, he just wants to be good and is disappointed again and again and explodes in his violence and so on and so on. I am totally there in the film and in all later versions. I'm totally on Frankenstein's side. I want him to win. You want to be good. You have the feeling that you want to be good. You were a candidate in the presidential elections in Slovenia and you ran as a Liberal Democrat Party candidate and you came fifth. Was that a bitter disappointment or perhaps you were just lucky? Oh, it was clear, it was a joke for me. Although I must tell you that the name of the party was Liberal Democratic, but why? Because at that point in Slovenia, to
No, first I must say I don't like the usual reading, which can be even a conservative one, that Frankenstein stands for the social upheaval, for the revolution or social discontent which explodes. I think that Frankenstein is—if you read the novel, it's much better than the film, Mary Shelley—it's a kind of a self-criticism of Enlightenment. It shows where the classical Enlightenment idea of a natural being, human as a natural being, goes wrong. I mean, Frankenstein is a tragedy of goodness for me. Remember, he just wants to be good and is disappointed again and again and explodes in his violence and so on and so on. I am totally there in the film and in all later versions. I'm totally on Frankenstein's side. I want him to win. You want to be good. You have the feeling that you want to be good. You were a candidate in the presidential elections in Slovenia and you ran as a Liberal Democrat Party candidate and you came fifth. Was that a bitter disappointment or perhaps you were just lucky? Oh, it was clear, it was a joke for me. Although I must tell you that the name of the party was Liberal Democratic, but why? Because at that point in Slovenia, to
unknown
be a liberal meant something very specific. To be against
be a liberal meant something very specific. To be against
Slavoj Žižek
the communist dictatorship, but not to be a right-wing nationalist. It's a very strange destiny of the word. Liberal meant only this: I am against communists, yes, but I'm not a nationalist. And I think it was the right orientation, if we touch now on more serious matter, like, I'm appalled at these new forms of racism—against Gypsies, against immigrants, against Jews, even the old antisemitism is getting alive again in post-communist countries of Eastern Europe. On the one hand, you've been accused of antisemitism, on the other of being a tool of Zionism. Where are you on this issue? Isn't this for me the best proof that I'm on the right path? When for the same text both sides attack me. No, maybe this is the sign—well,
the communist dictatorship, but not to be a right-wing nationalist. It's a very strange destiny of the word. Liberal meant only this: I am against communists, yes, but I'm not a nationalist. And I think it was the right orientation, if we touch now on more serious matter, like, I'm appalled at these new forms of racism—against Gypsies, against immigrants, against Jews, even the old antisemitism is getting alive again in post-communist countries of Eastern Europe. On the one hand, you've been accused of antisemitism, on the other of being a tool of Zionism. Where are you on this issue? Isn't this for me the best proof that I'm on the right path? When for the same text both sides attack me. No, maybe this is the sign—well,
unknown
I am—my critique of Zionism—by Zionism, I don't mean Zionism as such, but the ongoing politics of the state of Israel—is not on behalf of some Arab rights. I think the most horrible thing is that what the Jews will lose if they follow this path of a nation-state is precisely what made them maybe the greatest nation in the history of humanity. The true victims of
I am—my critique of Zionism—by Zionism, I don't mean Zionism as such, but the ongoing politics of the state of Israel—is not on behalf of some Arab rights. I think the most horrible thing is that what the Jews will lose if they follow this path of a nation-state is precisely what made them maybe the greatest nation in the history of humanity. The true victims of
unknown
this
this
unknown
process will not be the
process will not be the
unknown
poor Palestinians, but Jews themselves. Something will be lost, the most precious element in the
poor Palestinians, but Jews themselves. Something will be lost, the most precious element in the
Slavoj Žižek
Jewish legacy. Slavoj, you and I would agree that global capitalism seems to be approaching a terminal crisis. How do we prepare for the end? But I am the first to warn that I don't have a rabbit to pull out of my hat. I'm not saying what we should do. I'm very pessimist here. I'm not old leftist utopian. What should we do? State socialism? No thanks. Welfare social democracy? It's had its time, it's over. All these Seattle or Porto Alegre dreams of some kind of direct democracy? No thanks. So I'm very critical here. I'm not offering an easy way out.
Jewish legacy. Slavoj, you and I would agree that global capitalism seems to be approaching a terminal crisis. How do we prepare for the end? But I am the first to warn that I don't have a rabbit to pull out of my hat. I'm not saying what we should do. I'm very pessimist here. I'm not old leftist utopian. What should we do? State socialism? No thanks. Welfare social democracy? It's had its time, it's over. All these Seattle or Porto Alegre dreams of some kind of direct democracy? No thanks. So I'm very critical here. I'm not offering an easy way out.
unknown
Is there a way out, easy or other wise? Oh, let's hope it's not, but if it's not, then I don't like our future. Then I sincerely
Is there a way out, easy or other wise? Oh, let's hope it's not, but if it's not, then I don't like our future. Then I sincerely
Slavoj Žižek
think that we will slowly approach a kind of a new apartheid society. I don't like these old terms like new fascism or whatever. It will still be a very permissive society in the domains of sexuality or whatever you want, but we will be controlled. There will be new limits. For example, the Berlin Wall fell down. What we are getting now are new walls popping up all around. And I really think that the alternative is either a new radical left or, again, some kind of a new apartheid, depoliticized society where the elected people are some of them, those who are in, are kept relatively happy. Outside, there are more and more excluded people who will explode from time to time. I really think
think that we will slowly approach a kind of a new apartheid society. I don't like these old terms like new fascism or whatever. It will still be a very permissive society in the domains of sexuality or whatever you want, but we will be controlled. There will be new limits. For example, the Berlin Wall fell down. What we are getting now are new walls popping up all around. And I really think that the alternative is either a new radical left or, again, some kind of a new apartheid, depoliticized society where the elected people are some of them, those who are in, are kept relatively happy. Outside, there are more and more excluded people who will explode from time to time. I really think
unknown
that in many countries today we are really approaching a kind of a latent potential low-level but nonetheless
that in many countries today we are really approaching a kind of a latent potential low-level but nonetheless
Slavoj Žižek
civil war. Like, can you imagine, you remember those outbursts a couple of years ago in Paris where the young mob was burning cars? Or in England, those very mysterious riots a couple of months ago. It's very tragic how this all points towards some kind of a discontent which only from time to time explodes in pure violence which is not even to—able to formulate not even the most minimal political program. What did people who were looting stores demand in England? Nothing. No program. I've no doubt that you'll make many new friends when you arrive in
civil war. Like, can you imagine, you remember those outbursts a couple of years ago in Paris where the young mob was burning cars? Or in England, those very mysterious riots a couple of months ago. It's very tragic how this all points towards some kind of a discontent which only from time to time explodes in pure violence which is not even to—able to formulate not even the most minimal political program. What did people who were looting stores demand in England? Nothing. No program. I've no doubt that you'll make many new friends when you arrive in
unknown
Australia with
Australia with
Slavoj Žižek
your dangerous ideas, but you already have one. I understand that you were recently on stage in London with Julian Assange talking about WikiLeaks. Yeah. And I'm still his friend. But you know, I think it's more intelligent what he's doing than it appears to. He's not naive in the sense that, "Oh, we should bring out all the secrets and people will be talking the truth." No, he's well aware that everything cannot be put out into the open. But that only in very specific conditions, when those in power, as it were, violate the implicit pact that we ordinary people have with them, only at that point one should resort to such radical measures. So, you know, because let me just draw my attention to one paradox that many people didn't notice. Did we really, really learn anything surprisingly new from all the WikiLeaks disclosure? Didn't we all, all that we learned, didn't
your dangerous ideas, but you already have one. I understand that you were recently on stage in London with Julian Assange talking about WikiLeaks. Yeah. And I'm still his friend. But you know, I think it's more intelligent what he's doing than it appears to. He's not naive in the sense that, "Oh, we should bring out all the secrets and people will be talking the truth." No, he's well aware that everything cannot be put out into the open. But that only in very specific conditions, when those in power, as it were, violate the implicit pact that we ordinary people have with them, only at that point one should resort to such radical measures. So, you know, because let me just draw my attention to one paradox that many people didn't notice. Did we really, really learn anything surprisingly new from all the WikiLeaks disclosure? Didn't we all, all that we learned, didn't
unknown
we already suspect it more or less? Absolutely.
we already suspect it more or less? Absolutely.
Slavoj Žižek
But the difference is not that we really learned anything new, but that now we cannot pretend that we don't know it.
But the difference is not that we really learned anything new, but that now we cannot pretend that we don't know it.
unknown
Good point. Now, you were asked what your prize possession was. Your answer: the collected works of Hegel. Why?
Good point. Now, you were asked what your prize possession was. Your answer: the collected works of Hegel. Why?
Slavoj Žižek
Because Hegel is my ultimate philosopher. I just finished, I'm not kidding, a book which is now copyedited, it will appear in April next year on Hegel. It will be over one thousand printed pages. I was working on it continuously all the time for the last fifteen years. Then I can die. I only want to be alive till April next year. Oh, dear idea. Philosophy. I don't believe in all this bullshit, you know, like people are—"how can you do philosophy when people are suffering in Somalia or whatever?" This is how ruling ideology today blackmails us. You know, when you see all these ads, "people are starving in Somalia" and so on. It always means: Do something so don't think. No, we should have this ruthlessness, of course, not at the humanitarian level, but at a certain point we should be able to say, "Even if all the world is starving and is brutalized, I want my freedom to think."
Because Hegel is my ultimate philosopher. I just finished, I'm not kidding, a book which is now copyedited, it will appear in April next year on Hegel. It will be over one thousand printed pages. I was working on it continuously all the time for the last fifteen years. Then I can die. I only want to be alive till April next year. Oh, dear idea. Philosophy. I don't believe in all this bullshit, you know, like people are—"how can you do philosophy when people are suffering in Somalia or whatever?" This is how ruling ideology today blackmails us. You know, when you see all these ads, "people are starving in Somalia" and so on. It always means: Do something so don't think. No, we should have this ruthlessness, of course, not at the humanitarian level, but at a certain point we should be able to say, "Even if all the world is starving and is brutalized, I want my freedom to think."
unknown
The voice of the shy and retiring Slavoj Žižek, philosopher, critical theorist, and author, in Sydney this coming weekend as a speaker at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas. You can get rid of all the other speakers, all you really need is Slavoj. Unfortunately, I understand all the tickets are sold, but what the hell, at least you've heard him on the program. He talks on Sunday the 2nd of October at and the title is terrific: "Let us be realist and demand the impossible: Communism." And Slavoj will also appear at the Very Dangerous
The voice of the shy and retiring Slavoj Žižek, philosopher, critical theorist, and author, in Sydney this coming weekend as a speaker at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas. You can get rid of all the other speakers, all you really need is Slavoj. Unfortunately, I understand all the tickets are sold, but what the hell, at least you've heard him on the program. He talks on Sunday the 2nd of October at and the title is terrific: "Let us be realist and demand the impossible: Communism." And Slavoj will also appear at the Very Dangerous
unknown
Variety Hour later on Sunday the 2nd at PM. It's the final event of the festival. It's hosted by Claire Hooper and features an intergalactic range of talent, including hip hop artists and a Sudanese child soldier. L-N-L on ABC Radio National and Radio Australia. That was fun.
Variety Hour later on Sunday the 2nd at PM. It's the final event of the festival. It's hosted by Claire Hooper and features an intergalactic range of talent, including hip hop artists and a Sudanese child soldier. L-N-L on ABC Radio National and Radio Australia. That was fun.